EFFECTS OF RUNNING VELOCITY
KINETICS AND KINEMATICS
MATT BRUGHELLI,1 JOHN CRONIN,1,2 AND ANIS CHAOUACHI3
1
School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia;
2
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; and
3
National Center of Medicine and Science in Sport, Tunisian Research Laboratory ‘‘Sport Performance Optimization’’
(NCMSS), Tunis, Tunisia
ABSTRACT
Brughelli, M, Cronin, J, and Chaouachi, A. Effects of running
velocity on running kinetics and kinematics. J Strength
Cond Res 25(4): 933–939, 2011—Sixteen semiprofessional
Australian football players performed running bouts at incre-
mental velocities of 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their maximum
velocity on a Woodway nonmotorized force treadmill. As
running velocity increased from 40 to 60%, peak vertical and
peak horizontal forces increased by 14.3% (effect size [ES] =
1.0) and 34.4% (ES = 4.2), respectively. The changes in peak
vertical and peak horizontal forces from 60 to 80% were 1.0%
(ES = 0.05) and 21.0% (ES = 2.9), respectively. Finally, the
changes in peak vertical and peak horizontal forces from 80%
to maximum were 2.0% (ES = 0.1) and 24.3% (ES = 3.4). In
addition, both stride frequency and stride length significantly
increased with each incremental velocity (p , 0.05). Con-
versely, contact times and the vertical displacement of the
center of mass significantly decreased with increased running
velocity (p , 0.05). A significant positive correlation was found
between horizontal force and maximum running velocity (r =
0.47). For the kinematic variables, only stride length was found
to have a significant positive correlation with maximum running
velocity (r = 0.66). It would seem that increasing maximal sprint
velocity may be more dependent on horizontal force production
as opposed to vertical force production.
KEY WORDS sprinting, vertical force, horizontal force, stiffness,
stride length
INTRODUCTION
O
f interest to many strength and conditioning
practitioners, coaches, and athletes is the best
training practice for the improvement of running
sprint speed. One approach that may provide
Address correspondence to Matt Brughelli, m.brughelli@ecu.edu.au.
25(4)/933–939
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ON RUNNING
useful information in terms of exercise selection, assessment,
and program design is to investigate the contribution of
incremental running velocities on peak vertical and peak
horizontal force production. It has been well established that
peak vertical (Fv) and peak horizontal forces (Fh) increase
(50–100% and .200%) with increasing running velocities
from slow to moderate values (i.e., 1.5–6.5 m
s21) (20,21).
However, little is known about how Fv and Fh are affected by
greater running velocities (.6.5 m).
Three recent studies have directly investigated the effects of
running velocity above 6.5 m
s21 on Fv. These studies
reported that Fv and relative Fv (RFv = Fv divided by body
mass) remained constant after running velocities increased
above 6.0–7.0 m
s21 or 70% maximum running velocity (Vmax)
in endurance runners and sprinters (13,14,22). Furthermore,
the correlational studies that have investigated the relation-
ship between maximum running velocity and Fv have
reported nonsignificant correlations (19,23). These findings
suggest that peak vertical forces (i.e., Fv or RFv) do not have
a major influence on increasing running velocity (13,18,21).
Conversely, Weyand et al. (27) indirectly studied the
relationship between RFv and running velocity by comparing
the relative vertical force produced by faster runners in
comparison to slower runners. According to their linear
regression, the fastest runners (11.1 m
s21) produced 26%
greater RFv than the slowest runner (6.2 m
s21). As stated by
Weyand et al. (27), the 26% difference was less than expected
as they hypothesized that greater vertical ground forces
enable runners to reach greater maximum velocities. With
such contradictions in the literature, it is important to
improve our understanding of how running velocity affects
vertical force production in athletic populations. Further-
more, very little is known about how increasing running
velocity affects horizontal force production in athletic
populations. Nummela et al. (22) reported that RFh increased
in a linear fashion from 5 m
s21 to maximum running velocity
in endurance runners. Kuitunen et al. (13) reported that Fh
significantly increased (i.e., both breaking and propulsive
forces) with running velocity from 70 to 100% maximum
velocity in 10 male sprinters. Nummela et al. (22) also
reported a significant correlation between maximum running
velocity and RFh (r = 0.66), but not vertical forces.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2011 | 933
 Running Velocity

All of the studies previously cited have used endurance or
running athletes. It is conceivable that field sport athletes, who
perform a mixture of training methods including explosive
training (including maximum velocity running) and endur-
ance training, would exhibit different force profiles over
a range of velocities. A better understanding of the relation-
ship between running velocity and force production would
enable greater insight into best practice for exercise selection,
assessment, and program design of field-based sports. With
this in mind, the first purpose of this article was to investigate
the effects of running velocity (up to maximum) on a variety of
kinematic and kinetic variables in Australian Rules football
players. The second purpose of this article was to investigate
the relationships between maximum running velocity and
various mechanical variables.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was performed during the preseason of the
Western Australian Football League. The athletes ran over
a nonmotorized force treadmill with embedded vertical
load cells and were tethered to a horizontal load cell. A
randomized crossover design was used to assess various
kinetic and kinematic variables during running over a range of
velocities (i.e., 40, 60, 80, and 100% of maximum running
velocity) in semiprofessional athletes. Secondarily, the
relationship between various kinetic and kinematic variables
in regards to maximum running velocity was investigated
using Pearson product–moment correlations. The variables of
interest included vertical force, relative vertical force,
horizontal force, relative horizontal force, contact times,
stride length, stride frequency, and center of mass (CM)
displacement.
Subjects
Sixteen semiprofessional Australian Rules football players
participated in this research (age 23.3 6 2.1 years; height
184.8 6 12.4 cm; and weight 84.1 6 7.4 kg). The players were
recruited from the West Australia Football League. All
subjects provided written, informed consent within the
guidelines of Edith Cowan University. The subjects had at
least 2 years experience with resistance training, endurance
training, and performed maximum effort sprints on a regular
basis.
Equipment
All running bouts were performed on a nonmotorized force
treadmill (Woodway 3.0, Eugene, OR, USA). The present
treadmill design was a modified version of the original system
designed by Lakomy (14) and Lakomy (15). The subjects
wore a harness around their waists, which was connected to
a nonelastic tether. The tether was connected to a horizontal
load cell, which measured horizontal force, with a ‘‘Y’’ jointed
steel wire. The horizontal load cell was attached to a metal
vertical strut with a sliding gauge, which locked into place to
avoid any movement during testing. The sliding gauge
allowed the horizontal load cell to be adjusted vertically in
accordance with the subject’s height, so that the tether was
horizontal to the load cell during the running bouts. The load
cell was calibrated before and after each testing session using
a range of known weights hanging from the load cell. The first
weight was at the lower end of the range (i.e., 10 kg), and the
second weight was toward the top end (i.e., 30 kg) of the
expected forces to be measured. Two different force inputs
were required so that a line could be fitted, the slope of which
was the calibration factor and the y-intercept was the zero
offset. Force was calibrated into Newtons (N) by multiplying
the mass of the calibration object by 9.81 m
s21
s21 (i.e., the
acceleration due to gravity).
Treadmill-belt velocity was monitored by 2 optical speed
photomicrosensors, which were mounted on the rear shaft of
the treadmill belt. The distance measurement did not require
calibration because it was measured from the photomicro-
sensors when the treadmill drums turned. The distance

TABLE 1. Running velocity, running kinetic, and kinematics.*

Variable 40% 60% 80% 100%

Vertical force (N) 1,681.6 6 226.0 1,922.7 6 235.0†‡ 1,942.3 6 278.9†‡ 1,983.7 6 271.9†‡
Horizontal force (N) 178.6 6 14.3 240.1 6 17.1†‡ 290.2 6 22.0†‡§ 360.9 6 27.9†‡§k
CM displacement (cm) 5.51 6 0.78 5.46 6 1.11 4.18 6 0.38†‡§ 2.83 6 0.41†‡§k
Contact times (ms) 301.78 6 22.67 280.45 6 18.56†‡ 248.29 6 21.78†‡§ 209.67 6 19.67†‡§k
Stride length (m) 1.70 6 0.62 2.12 6 0.54†‡ 2.57 6 0.64†‡§ 3.27 6 0.65†‡§k
Stride frequency (Ss21) 0.80 6 0.05 1.15 6 0.03†‡ 1.45 6 0.03†‡§ 1.67 6 0.02†‡§k
*R. = relative; N = Newtons; kg = kilograms; m = meters; ms = milliseconds; S = stride; s = seconds; W = Watts; cm = centimeters.
†p , 0.05.
‡Significantly different from 40%.
§Significantly different from 60%.
k
Significantly different from 80%.

the TM

934 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

which has the advantage of

quantifying various kinetic and
kinematic variables over multiple
steps. Previous research has re-
ported that nonmotorized tread-
mills are reliable for both kinetic
and kinematic variables
(12,24,25), and valid in compar-
ison to overground running
(8,17). Chelly and Denis (8)
reported that maximum running
velocity was lower on a non-
motorized treadmill, but the
Figure 1. Effects of running velocity on vertical force production. *p , 0.05; *1 = significantly different from 40%. correlation for velocity between
maximum overground running
and running on a nonmotorized
treadmill was very high, that is,
moved for each pulse was known and did not change, and so, r = 0.84. Furthermore, McKenna and Riches (17) reported that
the conversion factor from pulses to distance in meters was running on a nonmotorized treadmill produced similar
coded directly into the Force 3.0 software (Innervations running kinematics in comparison to overground running.
Solutions, Joondalup, Australia). Vertical force was measured
by 4 individual vertical load cells that were mounted under the Experimental Protocol
running surface. The vertical load cells were calibrated before The subjects performed running bouts at 40, 60, 80, and 100%
and after each testing session by placing a range of known of their maximum velocity on the Woodway nonmotorized
weights on the treadmill deck according to the manufacturer’s treadmill. The maximum velocity bouts were performed first
instructions. The first weight was at the low end of the range to determine a baseline for the subsequent bouts. After the
(i.e., 60 kg), and the second weight was at the top end of the baseline was determined, the subjects ran at the submaximal
expected forces measured (i.e., 300 kg). Treadmill-belt velocities in a randomized order. The subjects were asked to
velocity, distance, vertical force, and horizontal force were build up to maximum velocity over a 4-second period and
collected at a sampling rate of 200 Hz by the XPV7 PCB then to maintain maximum velocity for another 5 seconds.
interface (Fitness Technology, Adelaide, Australia) and The subjects were given verbal encouragement during the
analyzed with Force 3.0 software. The data were exported 5-second period to maintain maximum running velocity. The
to Microsoft Excel files, which were then analyzed with mechanical variables were collected during the 5-second
a custom-made Labview program. period. Long rest periods (.3 minutes) were provided to
The subjects in the present study performed maximum and minimize the effects of fatigue. During the slower-moderate
submaximum running efforts on the nonmotorized treadmill, running bouts, subjects were asked to build up to 40, 60, or
80% of maximum velocity over a
4-second period and then main-
tain these velocities for 8–10
seconds while Fv and Fh were
collected. To help maintain a
constant velocity over the 8–10
seconds, a real-time profile of
running velocity was projected
on a screen in front of the sub-
jects. For all running bouts, 10
steps were recorded for analysis.

Data Analyses
Peak horizontal and vertical
forces and running velocity
were derived directly from
Figure 2. Effects of running velocity on horizontal force production. *p , 0.05; *1 = significantly different from 40%; the nonmotorized force tread-
*2 = significantly different from 60%; and *3 = significantly different from 80%. mill as described above. Rela-
tive peak vertical force (RFv)

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2011 | 935

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Running Velocity

Statistical Analyses
Means and SDs were used as
measures of centrality and
spread of data. A repeated-
measure analysis of variance
with Bonferroni post hoc tests
were used to determine if
significant differences existed
between the mechanical varia-
bles at the 4 different velocities.
An intercorrelation matrix
(Pearson product–moment cor-
relations) was used to compare
the strength of relationships
Figure 3. Effects of running velocity on stride length and stride frequency. *p , 0.05 for stride length; *1 = between the kinematic and
significantly different from 40% for stride length; *2 = significantly different from 60% for stride length; and *3 =
kinetic measures and running
significantly different from 80% for stride length. #p , 0.05 for stride frequency; #1 = significantly different from
40% for stride frequency; #2 = significantly different from 60% for stride frequency; and #3 = significantly different velocity. Correlations were de-
from 80% for stride frequency. scribed as trivial (0.0–0.1), low
(0.1–0.3), moderate (0.3–0.5),
high (0.5–0.7), very high (0.7–
0.9), and practically perfect
and relative peak horizontal force (RFh) were calculated by (0.9–1.0). All percentage changes were calculated by the
dividing peak vertical and horizontal forces by body mass. formula:
Vertical displacement of the CM was determined by double ðHigh value  Low valueÞ=Lowvalue 3 100
integration of vertical acceleration over time, as described by ¼ Percentage changeð%Þ:
Cavagna et al. (3). Vertical acceleration was obtained from In addition, effect sizes (ESs) and coefficient of variations
the peak vertical force divided by body mass after subtracting (CVs) were calculated with the following formula:
gravitational acceleration (3). Contact time (Ct) was de- ES ¼ ðHigh value  Low valueÞ=ðSD of High valueÞ:
termined from the time (in seconds) the force applied to the Effect sizes were described as trivia l(,0.2), small (,0.41),
treadmill exceeded 0 N and returned to 0 N. Aerial time (At) moderate (0.41–0.7), and large(.0.7) based on the de-
was determined from the time between the end of the ground scription of effects by Cohen (9). The CV was calculated as
contact period of one foot to the beginning of the ground the ratio of the SD to the mean value over the 10 steps.
contact period of the opposite foot. Stride frequency was Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
determined from the following formula: 1/(Ct + At). Stride
length was determined from the following formula: running RESULTS
velocity divided by stride frequency. Firstly, the CVs of all variables over the 10 steps were less than
9.6%. As running velocity increased from 40 to 60% maximum
velocity, Fv significantly increased from (14.3%; ES = 1.0).
However, as running velocity increased from 60% to maxi-
TABLE 2. Correlations with maximum running mum, Fv remained relatively constant (see Table 1 and
velocity.*
Figure 1). In contrast, Fh significantly increased with incre-
Variables Pearson correlation (r) ments from 40 to 60% (34.4%; ES = 4.2), from 60 to 80%
(21.0%; ES = 2.9), and from 80% to maximum (24.3%; ES = 3.2;
R. vertical force (N
kg21) 0.13 see Figure 2). The total increase in Fh from the slowest running
Vertical force (N) 0.24
R. horizontal force (N
kg21) 0.28 speed (i.e., 40% max) to maximum was 102.1% (ES = 9.3). At
Horizontal force (N) 0.47† 40% maximum running velocity, Fh was 11.0% of Fv. As
CM displacement (cm) 0.17 running velocity increased to maximum, Fh was 18.3% of Fv.
Contact times (ms) 0.13 Vertical CM displacement remained relatively constant as
Stride length (m) 0.66† running velocity increased from 40 to 60%, but significantly
Stride frequency (Ss21) 0.02
decreased as velocity increased from 60 to 80% and from
*R. = relative; N = Newtons; kg = kilograms; m = 80% to maximum (see Table 1). Contact times significantly
meters; ms = milliseconds; S= stride; s = seconds; W = decreased between each measured running velocity (see
Watts; cm = centimeters; CM = center of mass.
†p , 0.05. Table 1). Both stride length and stride frequency increased
significantly with incremental running velocity (see Table 1
and Figure 3).
the TM

936 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

The correlations between the performance variables of
interest and maximum running velocity can be observed in
Table 2. A significant moderate correlation was found
between Fh and maximum running velocity (r = 0.47). There
were no significant correlations between maximum running
velocity and any other kinetic variables (i.e., RFv, RFh, and Fv)
For the kinematic variables, only stride length was found to
have a significant high correlation with maximum running
velocity (r = 0.66). There were no significant correlations
found between maximum running velocity and any other
kinematic variables (i.e., CM displacement, Ct, At, or stride
frequency).
DISCUSSION
This is the first study, to our knowledge, that has investigated
the effects of running velocity (up to maximum) on Fv and
Fh in well-trained athletes who routinely perform a mixture
of training methods, including maximum effort sprints,
power training, strength training, and endurance training.
Fv increased significantly as running velocity increased from
40 to 60% of the subject’s maximum velocity. These large
effects are similar to previous studies that have reported that
Fv increases as running velocity increased to 6.0 m
s21, or
approximately 65% of a runner’s maximum running velocity
(1,19,20). However, as the runners increased their velocity
from 60 to 80%, and from 80% to maximum, Fv remained
relatively constant. This was also similar to previous studies
that have reported Fv remained relatively constant at
6.0 m
s21, or approximately 65% of a runner’s maximum
velocity (13,14,19). The studies that have directly investi-
gated the relationships between velocity and force pro-
duction and have used crossover study designs (14,18–20,22),
have also found that vertical forces increase with running
velocity up to moderate values and remain relatively constant
after 6.5 m
s21 or 65% Vmax. In 3 recent studies, the influence of
running velocity (up to maximum velocities) on running
mechanics has been investigated in endurance and sprint
athletes (13,14,22). Each of the studies reported similar
findings on the effects of running velocity on RFv. Kyrolainen
et al. (14) reported that RFv increased only slightly
(%—nonsignificant) as running velocity increased beyond
6.0 m
s21. Nummela et al. (22) studied the effects of running
at velocities from 4.5 m
s21 to maximum over a 9-m force
plate system in 25 male endurance runners. It was reported
that RFv remained relatively constant after the athletes
attained a running velocity of 6.5 m
s21. Kuitunen et al. (13)
reported that vertical forces remained relatively constant from
70 to 100% Vmax in 10 male sprinters. The findings of these
studies in conjunction with the present findings support the
argument that vertical force does not have a major influence
on accelerating from ;65% to maximum running velocity.
The results and conclusions of Weyand and colleagues
(26,27), however, were different to those found in the present
study. These researchers compared the kinematics and
kinetics of subjects with greater running velocities against
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
those of lesser velocities on a high-speed motorized treadmill
(27). Weyand et al. (27) proposed that with greater RFv,
a runner’s vertical velocity (CM) would increase upon take-
off, which would increase stride length and ultimately
maximum running velocity. Thirty-three subjects with
various maximum running velocities (range = 6.2–11.1
m
s21) were used in this study. The average RFv values
were compared between subjects with a simple linear
regression. It was reported that the RFv increased by 1.26
times (or 26%) from the slowest runner to the fastest runner.
Although this increase was lower than the authors had
reportedly expected, they argued that (according to their
regression) an increase in RFv by one-tenth of one body
weight would increase maximum running velocity by 1.0
m
s21. However, it has been demonstrated repeatedly by
Cavagna and colleagues (3–7) that an increase in RFv leads
to an asymmetrical rebound (i.e., the amount of time force
exceeds body weight , amount of time force is less than
body weight) during high-velocity running. As running speed
increases, the asymmetry becomes greater, thus leading to
a decrease in push-average power (i.e., the work done divided
by the duration of positive work production), and a decrease
in maximum running velocity. Thus, it is not very likely that
maximum running velocity is limited by the ability to
produce peak RFv as proposed by Weyand et al. (26,27) and
others (2). It also should be noted that the results of Weyand
et al. (27) were based on variables calculated on a motorized
treadmill, the kinematics of which have been reported to be
different (i.e., invalid) to overground running (17). Other
limitations of the research design by Weyand et al. (27) were
using 2 separate populations to investigate the relationship
between fast and slow runners and also the heterogeneity of
these populations (i.e., range = 6.2–11.1 m
s21) which no
doubt would inflate any correlation coefficient.
Mero et al. (18) reported that the resultant of Fv and Fh
increased by 77% as their subjects (track sprinters) increased
running velocity from 55% to maximum. However, because
Fv and Fh were combined, it was impossible to determine the
effects of running velocity on either Fv or Fh individually and
therefore comparisons cannot be made with this study.
The present study found that peak horizontal force
significantly increased with incremental running velocity
(see Table 1 and Figure 2). Also, Fh significantly increased as
running velocity increased from 40% to maximum. Previous
studies have reported that RFh increased from 2 to 4 times
as running velocity increased from moderate to high or
maximum values (20,22). Kyrolainen et al. (14) reported that
Fh increased by more than 2.5 times in male (n = 9) and
female (n = 8) distance runners, and Nummela et al. (22)
reported that RFh increased 2–4.5 times from 4.5 m
s21 to
maximum velocity. The authors concluded that maximum
running velocity was more dependent on horizontal force
production than vertical force production. Kuitunen et al.
(13) reported that horizontal forces significantly increased
with running velocity in male sprinters. In addition, Fukunaga
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2011 | 937
 Running Velocity
et al. (10) reported that the horizontal component of work
increased with running velocities greater than 6.0 m
s21. It
would seem that the results of the present study are similar to
those in the bulk of the literature supporting the contention
that increasing velocity from moderate to maximum sprint
velocity is more dependent on horizontal than on vertical
force production.
As expected, CM displacement significantly decreased with
running velocity (see Table 1). To run faster, contact times
need to be decreased to aid in repositioning the legs during
running. As a result, CM displacement is decreased, and
horizontal forces need to be increased. In agreement with
previous studies, the present study found that stride length
and stride frequency both significantly increased with each
incremental running velocity, stride frequency increasing at a
greater rate.
To gain a greater insight into the influence of running
velocity on running mechanics, Pearson correlations were
performed between maximum running velocity and various
kinetic and kinematic variables (see Table 2). It was found that
neither RFv (r = 0.13) nor Fv (r = 0.24) significantly correlated
with maximum running velocity. RFh (r = 0.28) did not
significantly correlate with maximum running velocity, but Fh
did (r = 0.47).
There remains controversy in the literature in regards to
improving maximum running velocity via stride frequency vs.
stride length. It has been suggested that both stride length and
stride frequency increase linearly with running velocity up
until 7.0 m
s21 (16,23). Above running velocities of 7.0 m
s21,
stride frequency is thought to increase at a higher rate than
stride length. Thus, it has been argued that there is a limit
to how much an individual can increase stride length and
thus increasing stride frequency would be more important in
improving maximum running velocity (11,16,23). In the
present study, stride length significantly correlated with
maximum running velocity (r = 0.66), but stride frequency
did not (r = 0.02). It could be speculated that an increase in Fh
could lead to an increase in stride length and ultimately in
maximum running velocity. However, because there have
been no studies that have manipulated stride length or stride
frequency at maximum running velocity, only speculations
can be made at the present time.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Increasing velocity from 60 to 100% of maximum running
velocity appears to be more dependent on horizontal force
production as opposed to vertical force production. Future
research should investigate the effects of various training
interventions on increasing horizontal force production and
stride length, and their effects on maximum running velocity.
In addition, stride length may have more of an influence of
maximum velocity running than was once thought. It may be
that assessment procedures need to place greater emphasis on
horizontal force production and also a battery of tests that
allows diagnosis of an athlete’s strengths and weaknesses in
the TM
938 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
both the vertical and horizontal directions would be beneficial
in individualizing programs. In terms of sprint specific
strength and power development, exercises that concentrate
on force production in the horizontal directions may well lead
to greater speed development, given that most exercises in the
weight training room accentuate force production in the
vertical plane.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Sami Kuitunen for reviewing a
previous version of this article.
REFERENCES
1. Arampatzis, A, Bruggemann, G, and Metzler, V. The effect of speed
on leg stiffness and joint kinetics in human running. J Biomech
32: 1349–1353, 1999.
2. Blanco, RE and Gambini, R. Maximum running speed limitations on
terrestrial mammals: A theoretical approach. J Biomech 40: 2517–
2522, 2007.
3. Cavagna, G, Franzetti, P, Heglund, N, and Willems, P. The
determinants of the step frequency in running, trotting and hopping
in man and other vertebrates. J Physiol 399: 81–92, 1988.
4. Cavagna, G, Heglund, N, and Willems, P. Effect of an increase in
gravity on the power output and the rebound of the body in human
running. J Exp Biol 208: 2333–2346, 2005.
5. Cavagna, G, Mantovani, M, Willems, P, and Musch, G. The
resonant step frequency in human running. Eur J Physiol 437:
678–684, 1997.
6. Cavagna, G, Willems, P, Franzetti, P, and Detrembleur, C. The two
power limits conditioning step frequency in human running.
J Physiol 437: 95–108, 1991.
7. Cavagna, GA. The landing–take-off asymmetry in human running.
JExp Biol 209: 4051–4060, 2006.
8. Chelly, S and Denis, C. Leg power and hopping stiffness:
relationship with sprinting performance. Med Sci Exerc Sports
33: 326–333, 2001.
9. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
10. Fukunaga, T and Matsuo, A. Effect of running velocity on external
mechanical power output. Ergonomics 23: 123–136, 1980.
11. Hamill, J and Knutzen, K. Biomechanical Basis of Human Movement
(2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1998.
12. Hughes, M, Doherty, M, Tong, R, Reilly, T, and Cable, N. Reliability
of repeated sprint exercise in nonmotorised treadmill ergometry. Int
J Sports Med 27: 900–904, 2006.
13. Kuitunen, S, Komi, PV, and Kyrolainen, H. Knee and angle joint
stiffness in sprint runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 166–173, 2002.
14. Kyrolainen, H, Belli, A, and Komi, PV. Biomechanical factors affecting
running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1330–1337, 2001.
15. Lakomy, HK. An ergometer for measuring the power generated
during sprinting. J Physiol 33: 354, 1984.
16. Luhtanen, P and Komi, P. Mechancial Factors Influencing Running
Speed. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, 1973.
17. McKenna, M and Riches, P. A comparison of sprinting kinematics on
two types of treadmill and over-ground. Scand J Med Sci Sports
17: 649–655, 2007.
18. Mero, A and Komi, PV. Force-, EMG-, and elasticity-velocity
relationships at submaximal, maximal and supramaximal running
speeds in sprinters. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 55: 553–561,
1986.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

19. Munro, CF, Miller, DI, and Fuglevand, AJ. Ground reaction forces in
running: A reexamination. J Biomech 20: 147–155, 1987.
20. Nigg, BM, Bahlsen, HA, Luethi, SM, and Stokes, S. The influence of
running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact forces in
heel-toe running. J Biomech 20: 951–959, 1987.
21. Nilsson, J and Thorstensson, A. Ground reaction forces at different
speeds of human walking and running. Acta Physiol Scand 136: 217–
227, 1989.
22. Nummela, A, Keranen, T, and Mikkelsson, LO. Factors related to
top running speed and economy. Int J Sports Med 28: 655–661, 2007.
23. Sinning, W and Forsyth, H. Lower limb actions while running at
different velocities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2: 28–34, 1970.
24. Sirotic, A and Coutts, A. The reliability of physiological and
performance measures during simulated team-sport running on
a nonmotorised treadmill. J Sci Med Sport doi:10.1016/j.jsams. 2007.
04.008.
25. Tong, R, Bell, W, Ball, G, and Winter, E. Reliability of power output
measurements during repeated treadmill sprinting in rugby players.
J Sports Sci 19: 289–297, 2001.
26. Weyand, P and Davis, J. Running performance has a structural basis.
J Exp Biol 208: 2625–2631, 2005.
27. Weyand, P, Sternlight, D, Bellizzi, M, and Wright, S. Faster top
running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more
rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol 89: 1991–1999, 2000.

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2011 | 939

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.